I thought I made it fairly self-evident in my reply to Junius: that I do not consider some accumulation of virtuous acts, whatever the size, to redeem wicked acts that the virtuous acts were in no way dependent upon. It is at least feasible, whatever one's own opinions, to defend, say, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as necessary evils. The quarter million or so civilians who died during or as a result of the Philippine-American War? Not so much.
Unfortunately, most of China's "manufactured goods" are total crap, often hazardous, because they don't care... they are exporting it, after exploiting their people, abroad... it's a double whammy.
You misunderstand; I'm not saying that anyone here is consciously trying to "redeem" the United States (Junius certainly doesn't seem to be doing), but that it is dishonest to sweep the destructive influence that any given state, nation or power has had on the human race by discussing history in terms of "overall" influence, as if a (morally) positive historical role can be declared simply by tallying up all the good and bad deeds attributed to that entity.
It is now my life's mission to get the federal government to officially endorse the work of Gavin Menzies, just to see if I can make Dachs' brains come out of his nose.
It is dishonest to reduce their entire historical influence, through an "overall" examination, to that constructive "surplus", if you will.
Last I checked, California isn't independent anymore, so unless you think you are above or different from your countrymen, you called yourself arrogant. It really offends me that people think all Americans are social and political ******s, that we just sit back at McDonalds and forget about the world. The fact that we have a black president and are moving in a progressive direction, amongst other things, shows this isn't the case. We don't have to constantly be on the political edge or trend to have valid ideas. Not everyone is a flag wavin', immigrant hatin', Koran burnin' "redneck". The vast majority isn't like that, in fact.
I'm not contesting the conclusion, I'm contesting the logic. It's easy to argue that countries like the UK, US, and so on, have had an "overall" positive influence, but to do so you have to first accept the legitimacy of an "overall" moral influence as a concept, and it's that which I dispute. It's not possible to reduce the complexity of history in such a manner and walk away with anything meaningful, or, in this case, ethically satisfying.
You know how some people miss the point? Yeah, you should've taken that left turn at Albuquerque.
But you said yourself, "America's influence on the planet, overall, has been positive", and what is that if not a moral judgement?
In what sense does "positive" constitute an objective description? Unless you're suggesting that the US has a habit of sucking electrons away from other countries, I can't see it as anything other than a moral judgement.
As do I... America has brought way more good than ill... The help in freeing hundreds of millions in the Cold War (or at least, giving them the opportunity).
You misunderstand; I'm not saying that anyone here is consciously trying to "redeem" the United States (Junius certainly doesn't seem to be doing), but that it is dishonest to sweep the destructive influence that any given state, nation or power has had on the human race by discussing history in terms of "overall" influence, as if a (morally) positive historical role can be declared simply by tallying up all the good and bad deeds attributed to that entity.
